Bruce Poliquin Has That B-Roll

When many people – including Bruce Poliquin – see an empty factory, it seems they get depressed.  Depressed people pensively look into the distance, touch a wall, and convey a sense of remorse and sadness.  At least, that is what b-roll on commercials has taught me over the years.

I hope the Poliquin campaign forgives me for taking this opportunity to poke a little fun – because let’s be honest, political ads these days are pretty standard and his campaign is hardly the only one to take the “standard” approach, so to speak.  But none the less, I’m in a fun mood this morning, so I kind of couldn’t help myself.

Poliquin’s new ad is just fine.  It is a tad pedestrian and forgettable, but at this stage in the game he is introducing himself to voters and just trying to get people used to seeing him and thinking about him as a problem solver, so I can forgive the lack of innovation or originality here.

I do love the setting of the empty factory, and what I think they were trying to communicate with the ad, but that alone isn’t enough to make it what I would call an effective ad.  And thus far, Bruce’s ads have had a few distracting elements in them that have taken my attention away from the ad itself – the first was what Mike Tipping described as “bobblehead in chief“, or Bruce’s attempt to be energetic on camera morphing into un-natural and forced body movements that were meant to try to convey conviction.

In this one, it is the somewhat hammy, over the top, taking ourselves a little too seriously use of a standard (and in my opinion annoying) marketing tactic for commercials of many types – “depressed man touches a wall”.

You’ve seen it a thousand times (usually on low production late night infomercials) – when the maker of a commercial is trying to convey a sense of gravity and sadness, they will often times have an actor (in this case, the candidate himself) look off into the distance with light shining in their face, seemingly considering the massive weight of some problem or otherwise sad set of circumstances, while touching a wall.  This is supposed to be a visual representation of a mood – something that moves the narrative of a commercial along while giving the viewer some kind of emotional pivot point.  (Can you tell I have a PR background?)  Seriously, check it out:

The real problem is, it has been overdone so much by lazy or uncreative production companies, that even its use by quality producers is now obvious and almost farcical.  There is even viral video of people making fun of these cheap marketing ploys, such as the ever watchable “We’ve Got That B-Roll” (depressed woman touching a wall is 1:14 in) – one of my all time favorites. Seeing it in this commercial actually made me laugh, even though it wasn’t technically b-roll.

But in any event, other than that, the only problem with the video is that Bruce continued to have a very over-active body in the commercial, and his smiles and emotive expressions seemed forced and un-natural.  In other words, it seemed like he was playacting, and doesn’t have much experience being “natural” on camera.

I can’t blame him for that in the least – it is one of the most difficult things in the universe to come off “natural” while filming a political message, especially when you have producers around you telling you how to act, how to say things, where to look and right on down the line.  The problem is, it makes him sound phony and hollow – and distracts from the substance of what he is trying to say in the commercial.

This is made worse by the very very general planks on his platform.  The three he mentioned in this commercial are the now famous “audit of state government”, lower spending, and lower taxes.  His first commercial mentioned the last two, and added “accountability”.

What I have been hearing in reaction to these planks is some kind of mix of “well, yeah – that’s great, but how?”  In other words, “where’s the beef?”  What specific policy proposals will allow for a cut in taxes and spending?  What state government agencies do you want to cut?  What entitlements and programs are getting the ax?  How will lower taxes (and the lower revenue that results) be reconciled with the already gaping budget hole?  Just how much waste does he expect this “audit” do uncover (hint:  not really very much in practical reality).

Poliquin is not an empty suit – I happen to think there is a very capable brain up there.  I think the time has simply come for him (and, while we are at it, just about every single GOP nominee currently running) to start to throw us some red meat.  The only candidate thus far that I have seen come out with a detailed, non-obscure pandering plan is Paul LePage.  Sure, everyone has a few nuggets here and there (everyone seems to want to cut Dirigo Health for example, Jacobson has made a few specific proposals on military affairs, Abbott likes to hunt and Otten thinks that repeating the word “high taxes” amounts to policy heft), but by and large we’ve been treated to a set of goals and philosophical rally cries more than we have been treated to serious and sober political policy proposals (say that three times fast).

My advice to the Poliquin team – and for that matter, everyone else?  Set your candidate up for success, and start to separate yourself from the field.

Poliquin comes off robotic and un-natural in these generic “pitch” style ads.  Why don’t we get the guy a little more comfortable (thus negating the “bobblehead” and “fake smile” problems) by being less programmatic and cheesy, by no longer having him longingly look out the window of an empty factory while touching the wall, and simply bringing the pain with some policy heft?

Take a look at the ads from Michael Steele from the 2006 Maryland Senate race, just as an example.  Yes, the stuff about puppies is silly, but specifically I’m talking about 15 seconds in when a relaxed Steele sits down, says “I think you deserve better”, and chucks out a couple real ideas/proposals he wants to work for.  He does it again here about 9 seconds in (after the dog again), responding to then Congressman Ben Cardin’s attack ad against him by – who would have guessed it – talking about things he wants to do in Washington as a Senator.

The point is, Steele’s ads in that race were unpretentious, stripped down, maybe a tad silly – but kind of in an endearing way (I lived in Maryland at the time, and the ads were actually very well received rather than mocked) – but more than anything, instilled in the viewer a sense that Steele was uninterested in fluff or the politics as usual obfuscation about ideas and policies, and instead was giving the voters the straight dope and an unvarnished look at what kind of Senator he would like to be.

But more than that – they were creative, and many people thought they were a breath of fresh air.  Tim Russert (sorry, couldn’t find the clip on YouTube) once said that in a neutral election cycle (ie, not the 2006 wave Democratic year), Steele would have utterly destroyed Cardin – and these “straight shooting”, simple ads were a big reason why.  Indeed, Steele earned so much good will as a “strong candidate of substance” that he carried it into his race for the Chairmanship of the RNC.

Am I arguing that Poliquin – and the others – need to start injecting puppies, or perhaps even unicorns into their political advertising?

No.  Of course not.

But what I am looking for here is less standard issue, programmatic commercials, and a little innovation.  How about some creativity?  Less uncomfortable playacting by candidates – something that makes them obviously uncomfortable (which comes off on camera) – and more substantive straight talk.  How about a few nuggets for ideas, rather than flowery, broad goals that no one in their right mind disagrees with?  How about more Poliquin just chillin’ on a stool dishing some ideas that he is actually comfortable articulating – I said ideas, not vague goals that he has been repeating for nine months (see specific ideas from Steele’s ads), that most people just breeze over.

This has to happen.  Abbott‘s first ads, and Otten‘s were equally as pedestrian and uninspiring.  They weren’t bad by any stretch of the imagination, but they also didn’t contribute much that was memorable.

And we are in a seven person Republican primary here people.  Seven people will be putting up ads that look exactly like this.  Seven people will be saying just as much “nothing” as these ads have been saying.  People are already sick and tired of seeing them, and the primary is two months away.  People are already complaining that these people are saying nothing, and saying it way too frequently for their taste.

Modern political advertising requires a much different path.  You are not only competing for air time with your opponents – you are competing for attention from a much more sophisticated viewer.  Voters know when they are trying to be sold, and they easily recognize marketing tricks that have been used for as long as time.  They know when what a candidate is telling them is hollow, and lacks in substance.

That is why when somebody comes around and finds a way to talk to them a different way, they are so excited about it.  If you can make a voter laugh, think or leave them with an impression that you are different and interesting, you can count your ad a success.  If you robotically recite an uninspiring, repetitive check list of unspecific concepts while being uncomfortable, people will dismiss you out of hand and everything you will say will be white noise.

We’ve heard it all before.  Seriously – we have.  And we are about to hear seven Republicans and five Democrats give us just as much white noise so often we will want to kill ourselves.

The only way your ads will work will be to be different – to stand out from the crowd.  Be interesting.  Give us some actual ideas that make sense and we can associate with you.  Entertain me, and make me pay attention, then leave me with the impression that you are a heavy hitter.

You’ll never do that by putting your hand on the wall and looking pensive in the middle of an empty factory.

I want to re-iterate one more time, in case it was not clear (I’ve learned to do this from many an angry email from campaigns as I’ve made an analysis) – I did not dislike Bruce’s ad.  I actually did like several things about it and by no means do I find it harmful to him at all.  I think the people who made it did a good job, the message is fine and Bruce did a fine job with what he was asked to do.  The quasi b-roll stuff was humorous and a little distracting, but pretty standard.  In short, the ad itself was about as effective as it could be, given what it is.

The point of this article was to simply say that this ad – and the ads from Abbott, Otten, and the other ads from candidates in other mediums – have been uninteresting white noise, and if any of these candidates want to get the most bang for their buck, and immediately separate themselves from the pack, they will start to think a little outside the box with their political advertising and understand that the average voter needs to be able to recall your ad.  Entertain us.  Try some humor or wit, and for the love of all that is holy, bring some substance to the table.

In short – do something different that will make me remember you.  I have already forgotten each and every political ad that has come out in this cycle thus far.